I don't understand assets. Can someone help explain them to me?

Are you 12? Honest question.

You're here making shit more complicated than it needs to be in order to demonstrate your knowledge.

investopedia.com/terms/a/asset.asp

>You're here making shit more complicated than it needs to be
No, you're here making things more simple than they really are. Any autist how claims that a car or house are "far from ideal" assets without any additional context should be barred from posting on a message board dedicated to business and finance.

So I ask again: are you 12?

rekt

>what you save on rent you lose on maintenance and risk and missed opportunities from being immobile.

you get equity in your house which exists on a planet where population is increasing and land is scarce

>Any autist how claims that a car or house are "far from ideal" assets without any additional context should be barred from posting

Seeing a house as an asset is only worthwhile if you're purchasing properties beyond your primary residence to produce cash flow. A car depreciates like hell.

>thinks an asset that depreciates isn't an asset
fucking hell Veeky Forums

>A car depreciates like hell.
And if you bought it as a store of value, it would be a pretty shitty decision.

But if you bought it to get to work, buy groceries, visit friends, take trips, and run errands, then let's judge on it that basis, kay?

Where did I say that?

My point is if your only assets consist of a car and a house, both of which you probably owe money on, it is far from ideal. And I think this is the case for many people.

You don't own the part you owe money on, so in reality what you have is an asset that you can buy slowly over time, which is an ideal asset for anyone that's not born wealthy.

your ideals of ideal are all fucked up.

>both of which you probably owe money on, it is far from ideal
Adding to what said, there's nothing inherently wrong with buying depreciating assets (like a car) on credit. There's some risk (less on a more stable asset like a house), but let's not demonize credit just because some people over-extend themselves.

Ideally they also fund a retirement account with investment assets. Which 55% of American households do not do. Why? Because too much money goes towards a house, a car, and a credit card.

ideally they'd have gold toilet seats and ride flying unicorns to beaches where slave girls would suck their dicks and feed them margaritas.

your ideals have no meaning in reality.

>your ideals have no meaning in reality.

Why not?

because you're off topic

I'm not sure. I think it's probably because people don't actually deal with reality, the manipulate a cognitive construct, a model of how they think reality should work. This construct may be predictive on some levels but fail on most others. This is particularly true when dealing with extremely large trends where the person has only local experience from which to draw.

In your case you've chosen to elevate as your ideal something most people won't achieve, and those that do will spend their entire lives working towards.

while that may indeed be ideal, it doesn't mean anything to anyone because they're not going to reach it. Or if they do it will be because they ignored trying to reach it for long enough to reach it by sheer existence rather than persistence.

you're ignoring the process and concentrating on the result when the best way to reach the result is to ignore it as well.

10/10 would buy again.

An asset cannot exist without any liability.

A spice factory is an asset, its keeps making money.

Are you Indian? Because you should know this from your spiritual heritage, that basically:

"Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed."

Which is from Lavoisiers conservation of mass, that mass is conserved in chemical reactions. In other words on topic, everything is in constant equilibrium including your own human body. In the words of Bob Marley:

"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."

Just pointing out that you don't need a factory or money to add some spice.

You're off topic

>you've chosen to elevate as your ideal something most people won't achieve
>it doesn't mean anything to anyone because they're not going to reach it.
That's why I'm saying its ideal, I know its not a reality for most Americans, and herein lies the problem. The majority of Americans don't save for retirement resulting in their only assets being a house and car, because most live above their means.

>the best way to reach the result is to ignore it
If you set up a retirement account and commit a portion of your income to building it, then by all means ignore it until you're close to retirement.

>That's why I'm saying its ideal
something that's impossible for people is not ideal for them.
> because most live above their means.
which is just another way of saying they can't afford your ideals
>If you set up a retirement account and commit a portion of your income to building it
most people retire on SSI and the equity in their home, neither of which requires following your advice or agreeing with your ideals.

and while many of them will own their homes outright before retirement, this is just a side-effect of getting a mortgage and then living long enough to pay it off.

>something that's impossible for people is not ideal for them.
>which is just another way of saying they can't afford your ideals
It is impossible in many cases because of personal choices. If they set aside more money for savings, the ideal would be a reality.

>most people retire on SSI and the equity in their home
Obviously, but it is likely this this will not be the reality for future generations, which is why building personal wealth is important.

>It is impossible in many cases because of personal choices.
which is also just another way of saying essentially nobody shares your ideals. And well they should not.

>it is likely this this will not be the reality for future generations
Republicans have very little time left to kill SSI.
They're not gaining in number, so it's just a matter of time before democrats get power again and fix it.

personal wealth better not matter since most americans have none.

>it's just a matter of time before democrats get power again and fix it.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from.

I'm coming from a US where republicans are a shrinking percentage of voters.

>thinks welfare states just require the right politicians to function

Nice assets

>thinks the US has been a welfare state for the last 80 years
>can't explain why that welfare state continues to function

>thinks welfare can survive on anything but leeching a capitalist system

What the fuck does your interpretation of when the US became a welfare state have to do with its sustainability as a system?
Literally every person I know on any sort of welfare is a worthless cunt, along with their half retarded children, who will also grow up to be worthless cunts on welfare. Before welfare, people would fall into poverty, then they would work themselves out of it. Now that we have a welfare state, you get 5th generation welfare families (3 generations in white people years).

Do every taxpayer a solid and kys

we're discussing SSI, not welfare.

Look it up.
it's been running along just fine for the last 80+ years and it will continue to keep running with some minor tweaking as long as the party that wants to dismantle it doesn't stay in office.

you could just read a couple comments back and I wouldn't have to explain this shit to you, retard.

Its all the same shit.
When the government takes your SS money, do they park it in stocks? no. Corperate bonds? no. Precious metals? nope.
When they pay your SS, where does the money come from? Thats right, fucking taxes.
Those government bonds they put the surplus in? they count as a federal liability, AKA, shit they are going to have to pay out of the public purse. You got played into believing the old ss trust fund meme

then we're right back where we started
with you claiming the US is an unsustainable welfare state
and me pointing out that it has been for 80 years now with no end in sight.

Not that retard you're arguing with, but with Republicans and Democrats likely being in grid lock for the rest of time, I doubt the funds will be able to operate after another decade or so of the trusts running out

5% rental income and 10% p.a. capital growth from property. If your losing money your doing it wrong